^{page 363 note 2} O.U.P., 1948, referred to in what follows as SS.

^{page 363 note 3} Der Knecht jahwäs; cf. SS, pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 4} “Die Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches”, Z. A. W., 49, pp. 87–112, 242–60Google Scholar; cf. SS, p. 80 f.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 5} “Til uttrykket ‘Jahvaes tjener’: Streiflys fra Ugarit II”, in Norsk teologisk tidsskrift, 1942, pp. 24–6Google Scholar; cf. SS, p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 1} Det Gamle Testamente, III: De Senere Profeter, oversatt av Sigmund Mowinckel og N. Messel, Oslo, 1944, pp. 192–201 and notes on the several Songs.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 2} cf. SS, p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 3} GT III, pp. 194, 248 f.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 4} As in Der Knecht Jahwäs, pp. 37 n, 45.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 5} GT III, p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 6} ibid., pp. 192 et passim.

^{page 364 note 7} ibid., p. 196.

^{page 364 note 8} ibid. It may be remarked that Mowinckel seems to go out of his way to write a Christian commentary on the texts—a welcome precedent for future expositors.

^{page 364 note 9} ibid.

^{page 364 note 10} ibid., p. 195.

^{page 365 note 1} ibid.

^{page 365 note 2} ibid., p. 197.

^{page 365 note 3} Nyberg's article (see below p. 366, n. 2) was published two years before the Norwegian GT III, Once only, so far as I can discover, in a textual note on Isa. 53.10 (op. cit., p. 793), does Mowinckel refer to it. What he writes about the origins of the Servant conception makes no reference to Nyberg, and it may be assumed that it was written before Nyberg's work was published.

^{page 365 note 4} op. cit., p. 197.

^{page 366 note 1} See Supra, , p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 2} “Smärtornas man. En studie till Jes. 52.13–53.12”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, 7, 1942. pp. 5–82.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} op. cit., p. 64.

^{page 368 note 2} cf. SS, pp. 69 ff., 101 f., 201 f.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 3} cf. Myth and Ritual, 1933Google Scholar, and The Labyrinth, 1935, both edited by S. H. Hooke.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 4} cf. SS, pp. 105–9.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 1} op. cit., p. 68.

^{page 369 note 2} ibid., p. 71.

^{page 369 note 3} ibid., p. 72; cf. Riesenfeld, H., Jésus transfiguré, pp. 86 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 4} ibid., p. 74.

^{page 370 note 1} ibid., p. 78.

^{page 370 note 2} op. cit., p. 81 f.

^{page 370 note 3} “Till frågan om Ebed Jahve-sångerna och den lidande Messias hos ‘Deutero-jesaja’”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, 10, 1945, pp. 31–65Google Scholar, published in a revised English translation as “The Ebed Yahweh Songs and the Suffering Messiah in Deutero-Isaiah”, in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 31, No. 1, 04 1948, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar See also article “Herrens Tjänare” in Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk, Första Bandet, utgivet av Ivan Engnell och Anton Fridrichsen, 1948Google Scholar, cols. 844 ff. Engnell's position is shared by Widengren, Geo, Religionens Värld, 1945, p. 6, n. 3Google Scholar; similarly Riesenfeld, H., Jésus transfiguré, Copenhagen, 1947, pp. 81–96Google Scholar, and Hvidberg, F. F., Den Israelitiske Religions Historie, Copenhagen, 1944, p. 169.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} See Engnell's article “Konung” in the Uppslagsverk, cols. 1221–6; also Gamla Testamentet: en traditionshistorisk inledning, I, pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar, and, in English, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 1943, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 2} Uppslagsverk, col. 1221.

^{page 371 note 3} cf. SS, p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 4} Ursprung und Ausbau der israel.-jüd. Heilandserwartung, pp. 134–50.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 5} op. cit., p. 67.

^{page 371 note 6} “The Rô1e of the King in the Jerusalem Cultus”, in The Labyrinth, pp. 71–111.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 7} Rylands Bull., p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} Studies in Divine Kingship, p. 176 f.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 2} Rylands Bull., pp. 5 f., 13Google Scholar: this suggestion was first made by Gyllenberg in Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, 5, 1940, p. 87 f.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 3} Rylands Bull., p. 20, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 4} ibid., p. 19 f.

^{page 373 note 1} ibid., p. 23.

^{page 373 note 2} Ugaritic Literature, Rome, 1949, p. 3, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 3} ibid., p. 4.

^{page 373 note 4} Uppslagsverk, I, col. 1222.

^{page 374 note 1} Article “Ande”, in Uppslagsverk, I, col. 66.

^{page 374 note 2} ibid., col. 67.

^{page 374 note 3} cf. Hehn, J., “Zum Problem des Geistes im alien Orient und im AT”, Z.A.W., 43, 1924, pp. 210–25.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 4} Jesaja fortolket, Bind II, 1943Google Scholar; ibid., Bind I, 1944, pp. viii–xi; Messias—Moses redivivus—Menschensohn (in German), Zurich, 1948Google Scholar; Introduction to the Old Testament, Eng. Trans, revised, from the Danish edn., 1941, Copenhagen, 1948, Vol. II, pp. 110–113Google Scholar; “On the ideas of ‘the old’ and ‘the new’ in Deutero-Isaiah”, in Studio Theologica, I, Lund, 1947, pp. 183–7Google Scholar; see also Det sakrale Kongedømme, Copenhagen, 1945.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 5} In Messias—Moses redivivus—Menschensohn.

^{page 374 note 6} op. cit., p, 43.

^{page 375 note 1} ibid., p. 52.

^{page 375 note 2} ibid., p. 51.

^{page 375 note 3} ibid., pp. 53, 62, n. 37.

^{page 375 note 4} ibid., p. 54.

^{page 375 note 5} Jesaja fortolket, II, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 6} Rylands Bull., p. 30, n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 7} Messias u.s.w., p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 1} ibid., p. 60 f. In a concluding note to the last paragraph of the English edition of his ‘Ebed-Yahweh article Engnell says he has been criticised by Nyberg (he gives no reference and I have been unable to find one) on the ground that he has denied the foundations of the Servant-conception in real life. This charge he repudiates, and retorts with a tu quoque that “on the contrary it would seem very questionable how Nyberg's own, newly-repeated interpretation of ‘Ebed Yahweh as a ‘prophetic collective’ or ‘Isaiah as a collective figure’ could imply a stronger and firmer ‘foundation in real life’ than the interpretation of the Ebed as the Davidic Messiah.”

^{page 376 note 2} ibid., p. 61 f.

^{page 377 note 1} ibid., p. 66 f.

^{page 377 note 2} Engl. ed., Vol. II, p. 112 f.

^{page 378 note 1} cf. SS, p. 210.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 2} ibid., pp. 143 f., 147.

^{page 378 note 3} ibid., p. 210.

^{page 378 note 4} Studia Theologica I, p. 185Google Scholar; cf. my article “The ‘Former Things’ and the ‘New Things’ in Deutero-Isaiah”, in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley, p. 125 f.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 5} cf. SS, p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 6} In a personal letter dated i8th October 1949.

^{page 378 note 7} The Cross of the Servant, esp. III, The Messiah-Servant, pp. 64–87. This is the more striking because, although Bentzen is of course familiar with Wheeler Robinson's exposition of “Corporate personality” in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, ed. J. Hempel, 1936Google Scholar, I do not imagine that he has ever read The Cross of the Servant.

^{page 379 note 1} In Dansk Teologisik Tidsskrift.